Fix coding style issue.
Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c b/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
index a76db3f..863d4b1 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ static void sw_sync_pt_value_str(struct sync_pt *sync_pt,
char *str, int size)
{
struct sw_sync_pt *pt = (struct sw_sync_pt *)sync_pt;
+
snprintf(str, size, "%d", pt->value);
}
@@ -156,6 +157,7 @@ static int sw_sync_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
static int sw_sync_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
struct sw_sync_timeline *obj = file->private_data;
+
sync_timeline_destroy(&obj->obj);
return 0;
}
--
1.7.10.4
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 07:38:23PM -0300, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo wrote:
> Fix coding style issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c b/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
> index a76db3f..863d4b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ static void sw_sync_pt_value_str(struct sync_pt *sync_pt,
> char *str, int size)
> {
> struct sw_sync_pt *pt = (struct sw_sync_pt *)sync_pt;
> +
> snprintf(str, size, "%d", pt->value);
> }
>
> @@ -156,6 +157,7 @@ static int sw_sync_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> static int sw_sync_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> {
> struct sw_sync_timeline *obj = file->private_data;
> +
> sync_timeline_destroy(&obj->obj);
> return 0;
> }
Does not apply to my tree at all :(
On 07/30/2014 09:17 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Does not apply to my tree at all :(
I was using linux-next. No checkpatch.pl warnings for sw_sync.c in
staging-next.
--
Murilo
Hi,
Le lundi 28 juillet 2014 à 19:38 -0300, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo a
écrit :
> Fix coding style issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <[email protected]>
Is this some kind of game ?
The *same* patch was sent three times from three different email
addresses:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
From: Nicholas Krause <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:53:23 -0400
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH] staging: Add blank lines in sw_sync.c
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
From: Adrian Remonda <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 23:07:40 +0200
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH] Staging: android: Missing a blank line after declarations
in sw_sync.c This is a patch to the sw_sync.c file that fixes up a missing
a blank warning found by the checkpatch.pl tool
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
From: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:38:23 -0300
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH] Staging: android: sw_sync.c: fix missing blank line after
declaration
> ---
> drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c b/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
> index a76db3f..863d4b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/sw_sync.c
> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ static void sw_sync_pt_value_str(struct sync_pt *sync_pt,
> char *str, int size)
> {
> struct sw_sync_pt *pt = (struct sw_sync_pt *)sync_pt;
> +
> snprintf(str, size, "%d", pt->value);
> }
>
> @@ -156,6 +157,7 @@ static int sw_sync_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> static int sw_sync_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> {
> struct sw_sync_timeline *obj = file->private_data;
> +
> sync_timeline_destroy(&obj->obj);
> return 0;
> }
Regards.
--
Yann Droneaud
OPTEYA
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:00:19PM +0200, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le lundi 28 juillet 2014 ? 19:38 -0300, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo a
> ?crit :
> > Fix coding style issue.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <[email protected]>
>
> Is this some kind of game ?
>
> The *same* patch was sent three times from three different email
> addresses:
This is just normal.
Once I saw 7 people send the same patch. I was almost the third person
to send a fix last week. I had the patch prepared to send, but I
happened to look at my inbox before sending.
regards,
dan carpenter
Hi,
Le jeudi 31 juillet 2014 à 16:30 +0300, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:00:19PM +0200, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> > Le lundi 28 juillet 2014 à 19:38 -0300, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo a
> > écrit :
> > > Fix coding style issue.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <[email protected]>
> >
> > Is this some kind of game ?
> >
> > The *same* patch was sent three times from three different email
> > addresses:
>
> This is just normal.
>
> Once I saw 7 people send the same patch. I was almost the third person
> to send a fix last week. I had the patch prepared to send, but I
> happened to look at my inbox before sending.
>
As the initial patch was sent by someone who has some trouble with the
way things are done here [1], it raise some, probably false, alarms.
[1] "Help with flame wars"
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/2014-July/011394.html
Regards.
--
Yann Droneaud
OPTEYA